On Sep 24, 2005, at 17:05, Manuel Mall wrote:

Hi Manuel,

I just discovered something unusual in the spec. It describes the
dominant-baseline property in a number of places as:
'The "dominant-baseline" property is a compound value with three
It then goes on and lists the 3 components as
"dominant-baseline-identifier", "baseline-table" and "baseline-table
font-size" collectively referred to as a "scaled-baseline-table". Or to
put it differently - the computed value of the "dominant-baseline"
property is a value of type "scaled-baseline-table".

Not exactly. Read 7.13.5:

"The 'dominant-baseline' property is used to determine a scaled-baseline-table. A scaled-baseline-table is a compound value with three components..."

So, it's not the property itself which is a compound value, but rather the property's enum value is used to determine the compound value of the scaled-baseline-table.

The current property system models the dominant-baseline property only
as an enum and doesn't provide for its computed value being the above

Any suggestions how to best integrate this into the property system.
Doesn't that mean the getValue on the dominant-baseline property should
not return an enum but a value of type "scaled-baseline-table"?

So, IMHO: No, the property value should be retrieved by getEnum(), and then the returned value should be used to construct something corresponding to this scaled-baseline-table, but I think it would be confusing/misleading to have the property return such a compound value by itself...

As to how to integrate this: no clear idea ATM, but I'll give it some thought.
Maybe Finn or others have a few ideas to add?



Reply via email to